Navigate:

Some states weigh easing gun laws

As Washington, D.C., prepares for a fight over additional gun control measure in the wake of the Newtown massacre, lawmakers in some of the states with the weakest gun laws in the nation are going in a different direction - proposing arming teachers and easing firearm restrictions.

Gun rights advocates have suggested armed school staff could have prevented the killing of 20 children in a Connecticut elementary school. Now, lawmakers in Texas, Tennessee, Virginia and Florida are considering arming teachers and allowing concealed weapons on school campuses. All four states have the Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence’s lowest rating.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“That’s insane,” Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said at a press conference Tuesday. “Think about what that’s saying: It’s saying the only answer to violence is more violence. The only answer to guns is more guns.”

Hours after the killings in Newtown last week, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson endorsed armed school staffers as a way to prevent future school slayings.

“We need somebody at a school who change the dynamic when a shooter arrives,” Patterson told POLITICO. “The first time someone returns fire, the dynamic changes.”

Patterson cited the University of Texas tower shootings in 1966. While the gunman was able to snipe from a bell tower and kill 13 people, the situation changed once nearby civilians and police officers started firing back 20 minutes into his rampage. The return fire allowed police officers to climb the tower and kill Whitman.

Patterson, who wrote Texas’ original concealed carry law as a state legislator and is running for lieutenant governor in 2014, has long favored allowing concealed weapons in schools. But his idea seem to be gaining steam. Texas Gov. Rick Perry told a Tea Party group this week he wants a law allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons in school.

Patterson said he was looking at legislation authorizing the creation of “school marshals.” The marshals would be staff members who already possess concealed carry licenses. They would take additional training before being allowed to carry on campus.

While Texas is the center of the movement, governors in Tennessee and Virginia have also signaled openness to allowing guns on school grounds.

“If people were armed, not just a police officer, but other school officials that were trained and chose to have a weapon, certainly there would be an opportunity to stop an individual trying to get into the school,” Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said on WTOP, a local radio station.

The proposal has generated an uproar in Virginia, the site of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre and of state elections in 2013. Fairfax County Federation of Teachers President Steven Greenburg argued the plan was a “recipe for disaster,” and told POLITICO some of his 4,200 members wouldn’t teach in a district or state that allowed teachers to carry guns. Democratic legislators seem to sense an advantage, proposing legislation that would fine gun owners who fail to report thefts and close the “gun show loophole.” But House Republicans and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe have backed the same solution, funding school safety officers for elementary schools.

“In our zealousness to protect people from harm we’ve created all these gun-free zones and what we’ve inadvertently done is we’ve made them a target,” Florida GOP Rep. Dennis Baxley told the AP. “A helpless target is exactly what a deranged person is looking for where they cannot be stopped.”

It's not secession, but once again the South is going one way while the rest of the country is going in a different direction.

The South already has the nation's lowest life expectancy and highest rates of gun violence, and as Southern governors resist Obamacare and gun control we can only expect these differences to increase.

Law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits are the only proven method to control the evil sociological ill created by the Progressive Media Culture of Death. The far Left's denial of facing mental health issues is a national embarrassment.

I disagree with OhioBlues. The founders constructed the Constitution with the intent that "the people" should be allowed to defend themselves and their property. The Constitution was not drafted with the idea we would have a standing army, but instead that the people would need the means to protect themselves from enemies "both foreign and domestic". It instead extended the right to the States to form militias (armed citizens). It would be unwise to intentionally keep your potential "army" beholden to outdated technology as many of the founders were well versed in warfare and understood the technological advancements of armaments throughout history and the fact that trend would continue. Our "problem" has come from the fact that we have relied on Government to provide a service that it simply cannot do. The Government cannot protect us from all evils. If there are two banks side by side and one is guarded by guards with a means of protection and the other simply has a lock on the door, which bank is most likely to get robbed? People have become so afraid of guns that they have legislated themselves into victims. This is not truely an argument about public safety. If it were, we would be discussing reduction of horsepower in vehicles (since horsedrawn buggies is all the founders were aware of at the time) and the fact there is no need to own a vehicle that travels above the speed limit. Citizens should have the right to bear the same arms that their potential enemies (both foreign and domestic) own in order to have a "level playing field". Perhaps instead of blaming the tools of destruction (like cars and guns), we should look to what has caused people to be so easily victimized and why so few people have been able to hurt so many so easily. In the most recent tragedy I was most disturbed to hear the stories of helplessness and complete fear some felt as well as the heroism some displayed in the protection of others by becoming a victim themselves. No one should ever be that helpless!

P.S. - When you don't do your homework and don't know what you are talking about, it shows.

BIOYA

Guns in 1791 were made by a gunsmith, had rudimentary rifling, were single-shot weapons, loaded through the muzzle and fired by means of a flintlock.

Guns in 1791 did not have interchangeable parts (popularized in 1798), were not revolvers, (invented in 1835), were not breach loaded (popularized in 1810), did not use smokeless powder (invented in 1885), did not use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridge bullets (invented in 1842) and did not load bullets from a clip (invented in 1890).

A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment would permit only those of us who are members of a well regulated Militia to bear arms as they existed when the amendment was ratified. Since it takes 15 seconds for an expert to reload a muzzleloader, that would put an end to mass killings with a gun.

In 1798 Eli Whitney contracted with the Army to make muskets using an assembly line and featuring interchangeable parts. The 1795 model Springfield Arsenal musket, the first official U.S. shoulder production, was a caliber .69, flint lock, smooth bore, muzzle loader, and the first standardized, quantity production infantry weapon. Prior to this innovation, weapons were logistically unsupportable as any repair parts had to be custom manufactured. Manufacturing tolerances had progressed to the point where parts interchangeability became a feasible option. The benefits of interchangeable parts is that a modest but generalized stock of spare parts can be accumulated to logistically support equipment. For example, if spare bolts and nuts are required, the bolts and nuts should all be of identical thread specifications and of a few s and lengths. Imagine the level of complexity of the spare parts bins if standardized threads were not used.

Citizens should have the right to bear the same arms that their potential enemies (both foreign and domestic) own in order to have a "level playing field".

By your logic, citizens should have the right to bear hand grenades and Howitzers. Many of today's potential enemies wear bomb vests. Maybe we should all strap one on and really "level the playing field".

OhioBlues, truthfully, sure we should. Is it likely that many ordinary citizens would own them and would I buy them if allowed? No. But we are kidding ourselves if we believe that only "the good guys" have those or that "bad guys" can't create similar weapons. Out of all the wars going on around the world and unused weaponry, where does all of that stuff go? I can promise it doesn't all end up in the hands of people with great intentions to protect the safety of the human race. I'm not trying to suggest any doomsday scenarios or advocate that people go out and trade in their minivans for tanks (I only own a hunting rifle, a WWII surplus rifle (bolt action), and a single shot .22) . I'm simply saying that we should not willingly allow our own Government (or anyone with disregard to laws) to have complete control over us and think that our best interests are always at heart. I believe that due to our continued occupation of other nations and interference in their affairs, we are creating a world of enemies abroad. I believe that as a nation, we hear of war so much but don't fully appreciate what all it entails as we have not experienced it here in our lifetimes. I believe that the Government (as well as any leader) should lead by example. If the Government doesn't want certain weaponry owned by people, it should not own or use them either. I wish for peace/safety and aside from hunting, and occasional target shooting, that firearms wern't used or needed. I believe you and I have the same goals and desires, just look to a different means to obtain them. You wish for the Government to control it, I wish for individuals to take responsibility for themselves.

In the seventies, it was the "Saturday Night Special"; six shots, six hits if you're lucky. In the eighties and nineties it was Uzi's and .380s; more shots, but still lousy to aim at more than five feet. Now we have .223s with 30 rounds small enough to carry in the seat of a car, high velocity varmint rounds with great aiming capability. An armed teacher with a pistol won't stand a chance "toe to toe" with one of those guns. The only way to keep parity in that sort of instance is to have a rifle available to "whoever" is responsible for "taking out" the offender. And just banning "assault weapons" or high capacity magazines is not going to stop crazies from using shotguns or pistols or even hunting rifles, although it might bring down the number of fatalities. Curing all this killing is monumental problem with no easy "knee jerk" answer; how do you stop the plum loco with a grudge from killing innocent people? And is it even possible?

See how that works out for America in the next set of educational rankings. China and India hire math and science teachers and pump out engineers, scientists and technologists. America plans on hiring ex-Marines to teach 'rithmetic to produce functionally illiterate high school graduates, most of whom won't major in maths and sciences and won't contribute much beyond being a Starbucks barrista.